This is the mail archive of the
guile-emacs@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the Guile project.
Re: Emacs Scheme interface
- To: Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <tosi at ees2 dot oulu dot fi>
- Subject: Re: Emacs Scheme interface
- From: Keisuke Nishida <kxn30 at po dot cwru dot edu>
- Date: 28 Mar 2000 15:23:15 -0500
- Cc: guile-emacs at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- References: <m3ln33ege5.fsf@kei.cwru.edu> <87ln33uu6l.fsf@PC486.Niemitalo.LAN>
Kalle Olavi Niemitalo <tosi@ees2.oulu.fi> writes:
> Many Emacs Lisp special forms like `save-excursion' take a list
> of expressions to evaluate. In Scheme, it seems more common to
> instead take a thunk to call: `dynamic-wind' and
> `with-input-from-file' work this way.
>
> Should the Scheme versions of `save-excursion' and others be
> changed to take a thunk parameter? (Then they wouldn't even have
> to be macros.)
I think everything in Scheme should be organized in the way of Scheme,
including the naming style. In that sense, the new save-excursion
should take a thunk parameter.
> The macros are more convenient, though. Perhaps we should
> provide both a procedure `call-saving-excursion' and a macro
> `save-excursion'.
Maybe... but having two different expressions may be confusing.
Does Guile have any macro like `save-excursion'? If so, providing
it as a macro would be OK. If not, only call-saving-excursion might
be enough. I prefer consistency to convenience. One may define
one's own convenient syntax in Scheme. (Good defaults are important,
though...)
Maybe the new (emacs macro) should provide those convenient macros?